--So if God isn’t implying superiority, and if He’s every bit as much feminine as masculine, why does He refer to Himself as He so explicitly in Scripture and only obliquely as She, like in comparing Himself to a mother hen?
--Because what’s the purpose of the Bible after that of revealing who God is? Isn’t it in revealing who God is TO us?
--The Bible is ultimately a RELATIONAL text, revealing who God is, who we are, and also especially the relationship between God and us and His deepest desire to be married to us for eternity.
--And so the repeated use of masculine for God is not a way of saying men are closer to God’s nature than women, but of saying that God is TO US like a husband and father in the masculine aspects of those relationships.
--So “He” doesn’t in any way deny God’s equal femininity, but affirms His masculinity in relationship to us, His Bride.
--And that’s why we’re finally in a position to answer another fascinating question people sometimes wind up asking that really puts all this He-ness of God to the test.
--“Could Jesus have been incarnated as a woman?”
--That’s not quite the right way to ask the question.
--Obviously He “could” have. That’s trivial.
--The right way to ask it would be, “Would the symbolism and theology have been as rich and accurate if Jesus had incarnated in a female body?”
--And the answer is, “No.”
--But here immediately people go completely wrong by thinking that this means women are inferior or flawed or something like that. That’s not it at all.
--The real reason for Jesus not being in a female body is because it would have lied about His relationship to us, His Bride.
--Because what’s the purpose of the Bible after that of revealing who God is? Isn’t it in revealing who God is TO us?
--The Bible is ultimately a RELATIONAL text, revealing who God is, who we are, and also especially the relationship between God and us and His deepest desire to be married to us for eternity.
--And so the repeated use of masculine for God is not a way of saying men are closer to God’s nature than women, but of saying that God is TO US like a husband and father in the masculine aspects of those relationships.
--So “He” doesn’t in any way deny God’s equal femininity, but affirms His masculinity in relationship to us, His Bride.
--And that’s why we’re finally in a position to answer another fascinating question people sometimes wind up asking that really puts all this He-ness of God to the test.
--“Could Jesus have been incarnated as a woman?”
--That’s not quite the right way to ask the question.
--Obviously He “could” have. That’s trivial.
--The right way to ask it would be, “Would the symbolism and theology have been as rich and accurate if Jesus had incarnated in a female body?”
--And the answer is, “No.”
--But here immediately people go completely wrong by thinking that this means women are inferior or flawed or something like that. That’s not it at all.
--The real reason for Jesus not being in a female body is because it would have lied about His relationship to us, His Bride.
No comments:
Post a Comment